Article: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1833858,00.html
Today, I will be writing a commentary based on an article published in TIME entitled Legalising the Organ Trade? by Peter Ritter. This article has shown the argument of both sides on why some influential people believe that Singapore should legalise organ trading, while others do not. I will be using information from this article to build my own stand.
The British Medical Association (BMA) has reported that more than 1,000 patients in the United Kingdom died, whilst waiting for an organ transplant between 1995 to 1999. In the United States, an average of 15 patients dies a day, waiting for an appropriate organ. Legalising the sale of organs seems to be a perfect solution to tackle the shortage of human organs. For each patient who receives a kidney, the United States' Medicare will save roughly $220000 in dialysis costs. However, why are all the nations in the world apart from Iran, still forbidding the buying or selling of human parts? In this article, Singapore's health minister Khaw Boon Wan has proposed to the city-state about the idea of legalising organ trading. Nevertheless, due to the ethical issues involved as well as trying to preserve a good image, the government has yet to make a definitive move. Today I shall convince you on why Singapore should remove the long red tape required to save a life.
As mentioned in this article, the government has encouraged their citizens to donate their organs after death. However, I believe that this speed is not enough to cover the thousands who are gravely in need of an organ. By the time the appropriate organ arrives, the patient would have probably died already. Some may argue that the poor are always the ones who need the money and thus sell their organs to the rich, making the rich the only ones able to afford for the organ. And as such, this act can be considered as “exploitive” as stated by Noel in the article. Yes, this would be a possible scenario if Singapore were to legalise organ trading. However, such a situation where the rich are always buying organs from the poor is better than both the rich and poor dying due to the lack of donated organs. Even the most impoverished individual would not choose to donate their heart or lung because he sees no monetary benefits. Thus, the organs of the donor that would have saved the life of a person in critical condition would be wasted. This selfish act would have compromised both parties involved. Therefore, it can be seen that organ trading is a win-win situation for both the donor as well as the recipient. It is patronising to see both people’s lives being sacrificed just because of the ban to organ trading. Also, the money gained from the trade would be able to provide the relatives of the deceased with a better life, and make his life much more worthwhile.
Another point that the non-believers might state is that the sanctity of life is compromised in such a situation. A human ought to die with his organs intact and the transferring of organs to another human is simply unethical. However, if we were to consider the overall effects of both choices, banning organ trading would be even more unethical. This is because if you disallow such a trade, you would be denying the chance for the patient in need of a kidney for example, to survive. It is much more preferable that some individuals receive organs, and survive, than none at all. Furthermore, for every successful kidney transplant, the valuable hours saved on the limited dialysis machines, can save yet another life. I truly believe that all religions hope for the better of mankind. Therefore, if we were to weigh the moral consequences, legalising organ trading is still the more ethical choice.
As quoted from the article, Professor A. Vathsala, Head of Nephrology at SNUH said that organ trading “institutionalises the belief that that the wealthy have property rights to the body parts of the poor”. However, I beg to differ. I believe that organ trading is an agreement that bears common consensus. The donor is fully aware of what will be done to him and willingly sacrifices his organ for the money that his family will gain. Furthermore, not all organ trades will result in death, examples such as a kidney transplant has up to 50% survival rate of up to 10 years. I believe that both parties would be very delighted if the operation would go smoothly. A famous example would be local actor Pierre Png who stepped forward and gave part of his liver to save his girlfriend Andrea De Cruz. I believe that if Singapore were to legalise organ trading, more of such successful stories would appear. Money should not be seen as an oppressive power that gives the rich the rights to a poor’s organ. In fact, both parties are on equal terms, and neither side has authority over another.
Recently, a video name “Charlie the Unicorn” was posted on YouTube with over 30 million views, as a satire to the world’s current organ corruption situation. It shows a unicorn who has been tricked by his friends to enter a cave where his kidney was stolen. Cynical as it may sound, a Turkish man who had been lured to the United Kingdoms by a job offer, found his kidney stolen after a party. Also, a tourist who visited China became drunk, and found himself lying in a bathtub full of ice with his left kidney stolen when he woke up. All these organ thefts and corruption are because of the ban of organ trading. Kidneys in the black market can worth up to $300,000. When you are in need of an organ, you will try to get it by hook or by crook. Since the by hook method does not work if you don’t have a voluntary donor, then they will just use the cook method i.e. the black market. Prices in the black market will soar and more and more people will be willing to sacrifice their lives just to earn that amount of money. Corruption further expands to advertisements such as websites like(http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/12649/sell_your_body,_one_part_at_a_time/) which encourages us to sell our organs. In our own country, CK Tang’s chairman Tang Wee Sung paid a middleman $300,000, to get a kidney from living Indonesian donor Mr. Sulaiman Danik. He was then charged under the Human Organ Transplant Act, which bans the sale of human organs. As we can clearly see, the legalisation of organ trading would benefit us in many ways. Black markets would not be able to thrive as the prices of these organs will drop. Some of the poor would now be able to get organs too as they are now more accessible. Legalising organ trading is NOT “choosing between the lesser of 2 evils”. It is “clearly discerning between what is Right and what is Wrong!”
